Midland Heart Limited (202409630)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409630

Midland Heart Limited

17 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s reports that it had disposed of her personal belongings.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. The resident told the landlord that she suffers with anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She also said that she was suffering with respiratory issues.
On 29 June 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in her property. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the report.
The resident told the landlord on 12 September 2023 that the damp and mould was “all over” her property and spreading “uncontrollably”. She explained that she thought that a leak from the upstairs flat was causing the mould to “spread further and faster”. She said that it was impacting her health, and she could not breathe when she was in the property. The mould had ruined her belongings, and she wanted the landlord to inspect her flat as soon as possible.
The landlord inspected the resident’s flat on 21 September 2023. Due to how extensive the damp and mould was, the landlord arranged for the resident to move into temporary accommodation. It then completed repairs aimed at resolving the damp and mould. The resident moved back into the property on 10 November 2023.
On 31 January 2024, the resident raised a complaint. She said:
1. Before moving into temporary accommodation for 6 weeks, mould covered her carpets, clothes, and furniture.
2. When she returned to her flat, she found that many of her belongings were gone. She said this was devastating and caused her significant financial detriment as she needed to replace furniture and clothes.
3. She had told the landlord that she was unhappy with the repairs, but it had not contacted the her to discuss it.
4. The landlord had not treated a cupboard in the flat.
5. The flat had started to smell of damp, and her dehumidifiers were filling “at a worrying rate”.
6. She had developed asthma since experiencing issues with damp and mould. Overall, the issues were having a significant impact on her mental and physical health.
The resident raised further points to her complaint on 13 February 2024. She said:
1. The landlord had not apologised or compensated her for the lost belongings.
2. It had committed to stripping and replastering the walls. However, it was clear that it had not done that.
3. No post inspections had taken place, despite the landlord promising these would be carried out 6 weeks after she moved back in.
4. She was vulnerable and she was struggling to cope with the physical and emotional toll of living in the flat.
On 21 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. The first report of damp and mould since 2020 was on 12 September 2023.
2. It had completed various repairs in the property while the resident was in temporary accommodation.
3. It was aware that the resident had reported issues with her storage heaters on several occasions. It had done some repairs intermittently but had delayed replacing them.
4. It had scheduled a further inspection for 23 February 2024. It would then raise any repairs it needed to do.
5. It required a list of damaged/lost belongings, along with receipts. It also explained to the resident how she could make a personal injury insurance claim.
It offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling delays.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2024. She did this via a phone call, and the information about why she remained dissatisfied is unclear. However, the resident later provided receipts for damaged/disposed of belongings.
On 23 February 2024, an independent damp and mould inspection was carried out at the resident’s property. The independent surveyor determined that the only source of dampness and condensation was the lack of working extraction in the bathroom. It also identified that the shower over the bath was causing damp to the bathroom and hallway flooring. The inspection report contained several recommendations to the landlord about repairs it should undertake.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 12 March 2024. She expressed her frustration as she had tried to contact the complaint handler several times but received no update. On 15 March 2024, the landlord told the resident that it would undertake all repairs that the independent surveyor recommended.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024. It:
1. Apologised for its handling of the repairs.
2. Acknowledged that while it had carried out repairs, it had failed to find a permanent solution for the damp and mould.
3. Said it had scheduled the further repairs for 3 and 4 April 2024.
If offered the resident £1,750 compensation. It said £750 was in recognition of the delays in fully resolving the damp and mould in the property. The further £1000 was to contribute to the financial loss the resident experienced when replacing her belongings.

Post internal complaint process

On 25 November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said that several of the repairs remained outstanding. The landlord arranged to conduct a survey on 5 December 2024.
Following the survey, the landlord agreed to complete further repairs as well as some home improvements. It also offered the resident further compensation, totalling £4,200. This was comprised of:
1. £1,750 it had already offered to the resident.
2. An additional £1,783 to “fully reimburse” the resident for her disposed belongings.
3. £100 for complaint handling.
4. £417 for the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home.
5. An additional £150 – which was not itemised.
The resident remains dissatisfied because she said that while progress had been made, some repairs remained outstanding. The resident wants the landlord to finish all repairs in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within her complaint, the resident advised that her personal belongings had been damaged by the damp and mould. The Ombudsman recognises and does not underestimate that this is an extremely emotive issue for the resident and that many of her personal possessions that cannot be replaced will have a sentimental value. This will have been a very difficult time for the resident.
The resident had also raised concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her health and that of the household. The resident’s concerns about these matters are acknowledged. However, any claim for damage to belongings and/or injury to health requires a liability decision to be made. The Ombudsman cannot make liability decisions. Such decisions are best made by either the landlord’s public liability insurer, if it has one, or a court. An insurer and the court are also best placed to decide on whether any damages are payable, and if so, what sum is due.
While we cannot consider injury to health, we will assess whether any failings by the landlord were the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident and her household. We have also considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings and the impact of the damp and mould.

Damp and mould

Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould with the utmost seriousness. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy.
The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property.
Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report notes that it is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period. If damp and mould is not dealt with at the earliest opportunity this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident and can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy. It states that the landlord operates a 2 stage approach when dealing with reports of damp and mould. Following a report made by a resident, the landlord will determine whether the damp and mould is serious in nature from photographs. If so, it will escalate to the second stage immediately.
At stage 2, it will complete a damp and mould survey. The landlord will aim to complete the survey within 7 days of escalating the matter to stage 2. It will aim to complete all repairs to resolve the damp and mould within 90 days. The policy outlines that residents will be moved into temporary accommodation if it is deemed unsafe for them to stay in the property.
The resident initially reported damp and mould on 29 June 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report or completed any repairs. This was inappropriate.
As the landlord failed to respond, the resident made a further report on 12 September 2023. In response to this, the landlord undertook a survey on 21 September 2023. This was reasonable. The landlord has said that the resident refused an initial wash down treatment. This Service has seen no evidence of this. However, the resident has not refuted the landlord’s statement.
In line with its policy, the landlord arranged for the resident to move into temporary accommodation due to the extent of the damp and mould. It acted quickly and appropriately considered the Ombudsman’s recommendation within the Spotlight report to assess the individual circumstances of the household and determine whether it is appropriate to move resident(s) out of their home at an early stage. This was reasonable.
In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have addressed the damp and mould and completed all associated repairs by 20 December 2023.
The evidence regarding what repairs the landlord did while the resident was in temporary accommodation is limited. The nature of the works carried out should reasonably have been recorded by the landlord. That an accurate audit trail was not kept is indicative of poor record keeping practices. Despite the repairs, the resident reported that there were still issues with damp and mould when she moved back into the property on 10 November 2023. It is concerning that at the point of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had not done a post inspection of the flat. Had it done so, it may have been able to identify outstanding repairs. However, the resident needed to take the time and trouble to raise a complaint for the landlord to address the outstanding issues. This was inappropriate and caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord arranged for an independent survey. This was reasonable and evidenced a commitment to address the ongoing issues that the resident was experiencing. The surveyor suggested 9 separate repairs, and another recommendation to futureproof the property from potential dampness. It is unclear why the landlord had not identified these issues during its own inspection.
The landlord committed to completing all repairs recommended by the independent surveyor in its stage 2 response. This was appropriate. However, the resident has advised that some of the repairs remain outstanding. This has undoubtedly caused the resident further distress and frustration. From the evidence, it is unclear if the resident has raised these concerns with the landlord. However, it would be prudent for the landlord to inspect the property now and confirm whether any repairs remain outstanding. If further repairs are required, the landlord should arrange these as a priority.
The landlord offered the resident £750 compensation at the conclusion of the internal complaints process. However, this was increased in December 2024. The landlord offered an additional £417 compensation in recognition of the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her home. The total revised offer of compensation from the landlord was £1,167.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £600 to £1000 in cases of maladministration where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
The latest compensation offer was received by the resident a significant time after the stage 2 response. However, this Service acknowledges that the initial £750 compensation offer was substantial and fairly recognised the impact that the delays in undertaking the repair work had on the resident and her family.
The landlord has acknowledged issues with its handling of the matter. The financial remedy provides, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance. However, considering that the landlord failed to fully consider the facts of the case and detriment caused to the resident, we have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Disposal of personal belongings

The landlord does not have a policy that sets out its approach to the specific events that occurred in this case. While not an expectation, the landlord may benefit from implementing a temporary accommodation policy that outlines the landlord’s and resident’s responsibilities regarding the removal of belongings from a property.
In the absence of a policy, this Service can only assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her belongings being disposed of.
There is no evidence that the landlord took an inventory of items that it disposed of. Taking such action would generally be good practice. There is also no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a disclaimer or asked her to sign a waiver to advise of its intention to dispose of mould contaminated items. Had it done so, the resident would have had the opportunity to retrieve any items she wished to keep. This was a failing.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord asked the resident for receipts for the disposed belongings so it could review them. This was appropriate.
The resident provided receipts as requested. This Service notes that the receipts provided totalled £2,783. Given the landlord asked for the receipts, the resident reasonably believed that she would be reimbursed in full. The landlord offered £1000 compensation as a contribution towards the items. The landlord did not explain how it had determined the amount offered, nor did it explain why it was not reimbursing the resident in full. This was inappropriate. The landlord failed to manage expectations and caused the resident considerable frustration and inconvenience.
As the landlord initially failed to offer compensation that fully reimbursed the resident, it should have explained that the resident could pursue an insurance claim. Furthermore, the landlord failed to provide advice to the resident about ensuring she had contents insurance. Its failure to not provide appropriate advice was a shortcoming.
The landlord offered to fully reimburse the resident on 4 December 2024. This was over 8 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. While it is reasonable that the landlord has offered to reimburse the resident fully, the length of time taken to make the offer was inappropriate. The landlord also failed to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused over a significant period of time.
Overall, while the landlord has now reimbursed the resident, it failed to:
1. Communicate its intentions with the resident about disposing of mould contaminated items.
2. Promptly offer to fully reimburse the resident for the disposed of belongings.
3. Offer any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Subsequently, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord had disposed of her personal belongings.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response 16 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was a departure from its complaints policy and the Code. Positively, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable and in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance for service failure.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 21 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. While this was marginally outside the timescales outlined in its policy and the Code, there is no evidence that this minor delay had any detrimental impact on the resident.
There were short delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the evidence does not suggest that these delays were significant enough to impact the resident negatively or hinder her ability to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord also offered a further £100 compensation for complaint handling in December 2024.
Based on the evidence seen, in line with our remedies guidance, the landlord has offered a proportionate level of redress for the complaint handling failings that it identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the landlord had disposed of her personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Issue a written apology for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of contractors disposing of his personal belongings.
3. The landlord must conduct an inspection to assess whether there are any outstanding repair issues associated with damp and mould. If repairs are outstanding, the landlord should confirm what the repairs are and when it anticipates to complete them. The outcome of the inspection must be shared with this Service.